Talk:Human trafficking in Finland/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 17:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
{{doing}} Look for a review by next weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Overall this is a solid article, but there's a lot of work necessary before it can reach good article status. My comments as follows:
- Structure and prose:
- For an article of this length, the lead really should be longer than one paragraph and adequately summarize the entire article. The lead also shouldn't need references except in exceptional cases, as the content should be in the article body (for example, the detail about the US State Department's classification.)
- Leaving aside the length, I found the lead also didn't do a great job explaining the topic to me, and it's an introduction to issues with jargon and overfamiliarity with the topic that impact the quality of the article. I don't necessarily know as a reader what the standards of the EU Protocol are, or why it's so important, nor do I necessarily know what NGOs are, and 2013 may or may not be the latest information available to highlight, but it's weird that seven years ago is being given such prominence. What are third sector organizations? Etc.
- According to Eurostat's 'Trafficking in human beings': Who is Eurostat, and why do we care?
- The structure of the article throughout feels a little slipshod. We've got old numbers and new numbers, and they're stacked on top of each other and filled with less-than-encyclopedic language, e.g. To some extent Finland is also considered a source country for human trafficking. (what is a source country? Who says 'to some extent'?)
- If there's only a sentence or two on their own in a paragraph, that's a good indication the paragraph needs fleshing out, the details should be rearranged to be more cohesive, or the information is trivial.
- The full text of the penal codes is probably not relevant for the encyclopedia, and I don't think should exist in an unsourced translation at the very least.
- The article has virtually no information giving any history of the subject, which seems like a glaring oversight; you'd be mistaken for treating trafficking as a 21st century problem only. The subject often veers towards just prostitution, rather than trafficking in prostitution or trafficking more broadly. I think the article needs additional research to be broad in coverage, and a lot of massaging to keep focused and comprehensible.
- According to research conducted by Lehti and Aromaa,—this is a giant quote that seems weird to not summarize, and especially to end the article with.
- For an article of this length, the lead really should be longer than one paragraph and adequately summarize the entire article. The lead also shouldn't need references except in exceptional cases, as the content should be in the article body (for example, the detail about the US State Department's classification.)
- Citations and references:
- The entire "human trafficking" section is unsourced.
- Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 1, 4, 12, and 13. Did not spot issues with improper attribution or sourcing errors. Publications appear to be reliable sources as required by standards.
- Media:
- File:Police patch Finland 2.JPG needs more information on exactly why it can be freely licensed. Does the Finnish public domain laws with government publications include patches?
Given that my issues with the overall structure and coverage regarding GA criteria #1 and #3 are substantial, I'm failing the article at this time. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)